Thought Docket

This past Saturday, the Washington Post ran an editorial titled “Christmas Day negligence”. It began reasonably enough:

UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.

It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Whether to charge terrorism suspects or hold and interrogate them is a judgment call.

And then this

We originally supported the administration’s decision in the Abdulmutallab case, assuming that it had been made after due consideration. But the decision to try Mr. Abdulmutallab turns out to have resulted not from a deliberative process but as a knee-jerk default to a crime-and-punishment model.

Well, I have to say that I am surprised at the Post editorial board’s surprise. I mean, this seems like a lot of ass covering to me. What does the editorial board think is meant when critics speak of a pre-9/11 mindset? What does the board make of Obama’s renaming of the War on Terror to ‘Overseas Contingency Operations’? (And what is the implication of “overseas”, anyway? What about the homeland?) What about the decision to try terrorists in federal court, in New York City of all places? What does the board think of the administration’s response - when presented with assertions that waterboarding has led to significant actionable intelligence - that we might have gotten the same intelligence through other means.

Where is the “deliberation” in these policies instituted by the Obama administration? To me, these all smack of a “crime-and-punishment model”. They all seem to be “knee-jerk” policies designed to appease a certain constituency.

Sure, as the Post states, “whether to charge terrorism suspects or hold and interrogate them is a judgment call” in the sense that the President must exercise his prerogative (and you have to hope that he exercises sound judgment). But just because judgment may be applied when arriving at a conclusion does not necessarily mean that good judgment is applied.

Nearly one year ago, on November 2nd, 2008, I began Thought Docket this way:

As I write this, just two days before an historic election, it appears that the citizens of the US are about to elect Barack Obama as president.  It seems like a particularly good time to begin Thought Docket.  The president-elect will face unprecedented challenges: two conflicts, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, a resurgent Russia, climate change, energy independence, healthcare, the economy, to name a few. I won’t be voting for Senator Obama, but if he is elected, it will be my sincere hope that he rises to these challenges.

I must say that I have not been impressed with the performance to date. Too much apologizing (to European bed wetters and Middle Eastern jihadists) and too little influencing of the legislative agenda.

Tomorrow morning, I will be heading to the polls in Virginia to register my choices for, among other offices, Governor, Lt. Governor, and Lt. General.

Virginia and New Jersey have received the lion’s share of press coverage over the past month or so for their off-year governor’s races, but more recently, attention has turned to NY-23. That race, which is a special election made necessary by President Obama’s selection of John McHugh as Secretary of the Army, was turned on its head when Sarah Palin endorsed 3rd party candidate (Conservative Party) Doug Hoffman on October 22nd. The party elders, including Newt Gingrich, had lined up behind the Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava in her race against Democrat Bill Owens. Much has happened in the past 10 days. At first, it was thought that Palin’s endorsement would only split Republican votes, handing Owens an easy victory. Instead, Scozzafava has dropped out of the race and has endorsed Owens (!).

It is difficult to understand how Scozzafava was selected to run as a Republican. Here in Virginia, our Democratic governors are often described as socially moderate and fiscally conservative. The popular Doug Wilder comes to mind. So, is Scozzafava more or less liberal than, say, socially moderate and fiscally conservative Democrats? Much more liberal! Scozzafava is in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage, the stimulus package, and card check! Yikes!

The race in NY-23 is close, according to the polling that I have seen. Should Hoffman win, I have heard two schools of thought regarding the lessons to be drawn. The Republicans might see a Hoffman victory as a blow to the Obama administration (Obama carried NY-23 a year ago). The Democrats might spin a Hoffman victory (and, of course, a Hoffman loss) as a sign of a fractured Republican party. But I have also heard that neither party should take solace in a Hoffman victory. This school of thought suggests that a Hoffman victory is true strike against politics as usual in Washington. Wouldn’t that be refreshing? Thanks Sarah!

Imagine my surprise when, this past Friday, it was announced that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. And $1.4 million. According to the Nobel site,

According to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize is to go to whoever “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.

It appears that, per Nobel’s will, Obama has done exactly nothing. But he has thought good thoughts and his intentions are pure. Obama doesn’t exactly belong in the same company as, say, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, Mandella and de Klerk. On the other hand, more lately the Prize has not seemed to mean much. After all, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Anan (and the UN itself) and Yasser Arafat were recipients. But those dirtbags at least had a track record. Obama doesn’t have a track record; he has a track wish.

Obama would have done well to reject the prize outright. But I suppose his acceptance speech was good enough.

I am firmly in the camp that believes that the prize is a mixed blessing. Possibly very mixed. The award is nicely juxtaposed with the administration’s equivocation over its Afghanistan strategy. If the administration essentially rejects General McChrystal’s request, it would not be surprising if McChrystal resigned and it seems to me that the administration opens itself up to the easy-to-make charge that there is some sort of quid pro quo. That the administration has been swayed by the action of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. If the American people come to believe that European bed-wetters have somehow affected the foreign policy of the United States, I will predict an even more rapid demise of the Obama revolution.  The Afghanistan question is the subject of current debate, but Iran looms and there, too, I expect that the NNC believes that they have some how inoculated Iran from further harassment from the West. I’m sure Israel is taking notes.

It has been an interesting 4 or 5 weeks, watching the administration’s plans for healthcare reform (or is it health insurance reform?) implode. What makes this most interesting is the fact that everything is stacked in favor of the Obama administration. Large majorities in Congress, and a filibuster proof 60 votes in the Senate. And they still can’t deliver. Just like the Democratic congress could have halted funding for Iraq, but chose not to. I would think that the objective observer would agree that unhappiness with Bush and Republicans last fall had little to do with lack of healthcare reform. After all, the Bush administration worked with Congress to achieve an incremental improvement in the form of prescription coverage for seniors.

As a compassionate conservative, I have been somewhat sympathetic to the plight of the most unfortunate among us. Here’s how I would approach reform:

1. Start with tort reform. There is no easier or quicker way to reduce the total cost of healthcare than by reducing or eliminating the ridiculous awards being handed out by juries like candy. And there is no easier way to indicate seriousness and a willingness to “spread the pain”. Plus, this will help get Americans off their notion that someone always has to pay if an outcome is poor.
2. Require all Americans to have health insurance. As with auto insurance, if someone chooses not to have insurance, require that they pay into an “uninsured citizen” fund. Those paying into this fund would receive their basic healthcare services via Medicaid. Those truly unable to afford insurance should receive some type of tax credit or voucher from Uncle Sam.
3. Eliminate pre-existing conditions (since everyone will be required to have insurance).

That’s it. The focus is on improving coverage, and not on “bending the curve” (aka cost savings). Anyone that has paid any attention at all to the cost of health insurance knows that many of the same concerns being expressed today were made 10, 15, even 20 years ago. Yes, healthcare costs go up more than the average. But something has to go up more than the average, right? This simply reflects supply and demand. And with baby boomers continuing to get older…well you can see where this is going. The Obama administration could consider addressing the cost increase by encouraging (through grants, say) more medical students to specialize in, say, family practice or in geriatrics.

I am amused every time I hear the administration trashing the insurance companies. The administration believes that a public option is needed “to keep the insurance companies honest”. Right. The fact that there are 1300 insurance companies does nothing for competition?

Liberals don’t want universal healthcare because they care so much for people. They want universal healthcare because they care so much for people’s votes. Give people healthcare, get their votes. How could I make such a grotesque statement? Simple. If liberals really were interested in keeping insurance companies honest, and spurring competition, and reducing costs, then why are they so fiercely against giving parents vouchers and a choice when it comes to education of their children? Apparently, there is no compunction in setting up a public option that has no bottom line profitability requirements to compete against the private insurers. But suggest that the private sector be allowed to compete against school systems that are top-heavy with administrators and that’s a no-go. It’s all about the votes.

Well, it has been quite some time since I last posted. What can I say…I sort of lost steam there. But I have been observing the situation in Washington with some amusement. I think it is possible that we have seen the apogee of the Obama presidency. The latest gaffe from Obama was his remark regarding the Cambridge police in acting “stupidly” by arresting Henry Louis Gates. Here is what most of the appalled left says about this:

• How could someone be arrested in their own home?
• There was racial profiling.

In Gates’ arrest, what seems clear to me is only this: Crowley did not give Gates the benefit of the doubt; he did not cut Gates much slack, if any. Beyond that, I don’t know much of anything, other than people are arrested in their own homes all the time. Have you ever seen an episode of Cops? See Crowley’s police report here.

Now this matter of racial profiling is interesting. Frank Rich, writing in the New York Times, gives mad props to the woman making the 9-1-1 call because she was not racial profiling. This was due to the fact that she did not mention that the suspects were “black”. Huh? Is this now the definition of racial profiling? According to Wikipedia, racial profiling

is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a “predictable” manner.

As Obama might say, let me be clear: there is no evidence of racial profiling in this incident. Not the woman, not Crowley, not nobody. Not even close. Maybe Obama can carve out some time in this learning moment and explain this to the race baiters.

The way I see it, Gates acted toward Crowley just like any other belligerent asshat does that tries to strap on the po po. Gates was nothing extraordinary to Crowley. Gates asked Crowley if he knew who he was “messing” with. Well, as a matter of fact, no. It may come as a surprise to Gates, Obama, and others, but practically nobody in the US knows who Gates is. His name is vaguely familiar to me, but I could not pick him out of a lineup. Sure, he is well known in academic circles, and I’m sure his reputation is well deserved. But the man on the street would not know him from Adam. And Crowley acted toward Gates in a manner that was foreign to Gates. Crowley was not some fawning, brown-nosing graduate student. He was not some faculty member looking to curry favor at the next tenure meeting.

To be as charitable as possible toward Gates, he acted like he was tired after his long travel back from China. Maybe he had a few drinks on board the plane. Who knows.

But what we do know is that Obama’s gut reaction places him squarely in the Rev. Wright camp. What a surprise.

My friend “Gina” is committed to Obama the candidate’s vision, world view, pledges, etc. On occasion Gina uses Facebook to blog about her disappointment in certain decisions made by Obama the President. Most recently, she posted two links to liberal sites that decry the recent White House response to concerns over an ad hoc statement made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

• Sotomayor Watch: In Brilliant Move, White House Rejects Strawman Arguments
• Give ‘Em An Inch

Gina, and those who have commented on her Facebook post, think the White House has been too accommodating in the face of Republican “bullying”. It seems to me as though the bullys, if there is such a thing, are the likes of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, and they don’t have votes in the Senate. I thought the left was happy having these two be the face of the Republican party! This morning I saw Republican Jeff Sessions and Democrat Patrick Leahy together on a news program answering questions concerning the nomination. Sessions seemed more than reasonable and even Leahy made some sense, which is newsworthy in its own right.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

I think I know what Sotomayor was trying to say, but I think she said it in a poor way. I’m sure I am not the only one that feels this way. I wonder how Gina and her like-minded friends would feel if a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court expressed similar sentiments using the same construction. To see how construction matters, take “wise Latina woman” and “white male”, and substitute anything else you like.

• Wise White - Black
• Wise Jew - Catholic
• Wise Man - Woman
• Wise Ivy League Educated - State University Educated
• Wise Midwest Raised - Left Coast Indoctrinated
• Wise Gay - Straight

It’s identify politics to the nth degree. I have read many stories in which supporters of this nomination stress that Sotomayor will have no difficulty in defending, or at least explaining, her controversial statements. I’ve no doubt that she will prepare a good explanation. I look forward to hearing it.

As I write this, the Washington DC area is set to test record low temperatures later on this evening. And, thanks to Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Party is set to test new yearly lows in honesty, ethics, and integrity. Why is it that Democratic leaders such as John Kerry (D-Bag, MA), John Murtha (D-Bag, PA), and Pelosi (D-Bag, CA) seem to be genetically predisposed to challenging institutions such as the US Armed Forces and the CIA?

It’s good to know that people like President Obama, Tim Kaine, and Silvestre Reyes fully support Pelosi. It will make her downfall all the more sweeter. Leon Panetta has done a good job of warning against using the CIA for political purposes, although this warning really only needs to reach one dumb Californian.

I don’t really care if the CIA told Pelosi that waterboarding had been used or that it could be used. She was silent on the subject. Period. In either case, if she had a concern, she could have come forward. She did not. This is the end of the story. Well, almost the end.

I’d like to see the release of the briefing summary. If the briefing summary is at odds with Pelosi’s stories, then she should be ridden out of town on a rail.

I was flipping through the channel guide last night a little after 10 p.m. I happened to see the White House Correspondents Dinner on MSNBC. I tuned to that and was treated to the last nine and a half minutes of Wanda Sykes. All I can say is

I would say that whoever scheduled Wanda Sykes to speak at the Correspondents dinner should be shown the door. Her vitriol was counter to the notion of Obama as a uniter. Wishing for Limbaugh’s kidneys to fail. Combining “pulled out at the last minutes”, abstinence, and Sarah Palin. Suggesting that small children would be better off in a stranger’s car than in Dick Cheney’s.

In the MSNBC coverage, the camera was tight on Sykes. This is clearly torture as opposed, say, waterboarding. It was an affront to at least two of the five senses.

She kept looking to her right. I assume that this is where Obama was sitting. From her reactions, I have to assume that Obama was none too pleased with the over-the-top routine.

Oh shut up, you all are going to be telling that one tomorrow. Shut up.

Um, no. I doubt that very many people will be “telling that one tomorrow”.

She said that she was so happy that “you’re doing something about education”, as if Bush did nothing for education. But then she tells us exactly what “doing something for education” means to liberals. It means nothing more and nothing less than “paying our teachers more”. Liberals do not care about actual education of our children.

Sykes hit rock bottom when she suggested that some previous first ladies should be wearing “ponchos” because of their appearance. News flash, Wanda. You aren’t exactly eye candy yourself.

Likening Limbaugh to Bin Laden, suggesting that he was the 20th hi-jacker. She looked back over to Obama.

Come on…too much? … OK

But you’re laughing inside. I know…

Sykes suggests that an attempt to defend torture by cataloging the valuable information obtained is akin to her robbing a bank and then defending it by saying

Yes your honor, I robbed a bank…but look at all the bills I paid.

Seems like perfectly good analogy, if you are an imbecile.

Anyone that has listened to Arlen Specter (D-bag, Pennsylvania) over the past couple of years knows that he has sounded more and more detached from reality. And I’m not talking about his recent switch to the Democratic party. Over the weekend, Specter plumbed new lows, using the death of former colleague Jack Kemp for partisan purposes.

In Specter Claims Kemp Would Be Alive if Congress Better Funded Medical Research, Specter claims

If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.

Yes, and if we had just funded more AIDS research…and if we had just funded more fetal stem cell research…and if we had just…

What Specter really ought to be interested in is more funding for mental health issues.

I’d certainly like to see a debate on how we fund disease research. Some diseases receive disproportionate funding compared to the number of those stricken. One such disease is AIDS. And, unlike most cancers, AIDS is nearly always the direct result of choices made by its victims. These choices - for example, the sharing of needles, unprotected (and even protected) sex of various sorts - have been well known to lead to HIV and AIDS since the national brochure was sent to US households in 1988 from Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.

Would Specter have us divert AIDS funding to the NCI?

No doubt about it, the Democrats are up and the Republicans are down. There is no shortage of pundits and politicians that wag their finger in the direction of Republicans and kindly suggest that the GOP will continue to contract if it continues to be “the party of no”.

But I don’t get it. I understand that demographics (e.g., Hispanics and younger adults) are not in the republican’s favor. But I don’t know what the critics would have the republicans become. It seems like the major complaint is that Republicans are not Democrats.

The Republican party nominated John McCain for president last year. Not a southern Christian, not a neo-con. But one of the few politicians that has actually worked with those across the aisle to accomplish legislation. It is true that recent budgets and stimulus packages received little or no Republican support. But why would there be such an expectation. As Nancy Pelosi said, the Democrats won, so they get to write the bill. A vote against $750 billion of stimulus, with its 1000+ pages, and with less than 24 hours to read, sounds like good judgement to me. Such a vote would not mean “no stimulus package”. It would just mean “not that stimulus package”. Meanwhile, President Obama has stressed on a few occasions since taking office that bi-partisanship is not about attracting votes of both parties. It is about “talking”. Umm hmm.

And, since the smack down in November, the Republicans have selected Michael Steele to head the RNC. Mr. Steele, a moderate Republican, was elected Lt. Governor of the People’s Republic of Maryland.

My favorite Republican last year, Mitt Romney, is an early front-runner for 2012. Romney, a moderate Republican, was elected Governor of Massachusetts. And he was the only candidate in either party that has actually spearheaded something like universal health coverage at the state level.

Thinking back to 2000 - and I know this may engender a lot of bad memories - I recall that W ran as a “compassionate conservative”. But what exactly did that mean? At the beginning of his administration, before 9/11, his main focus was on education. Later, he would turn his attention to Medicare prescription drug benefits and to an international AIDS program. I also recall the diversity of W’s cabinets. There were women, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans. Some were held over from Clinton’s administration. Some were Bush’s people from Texas. Others were those that had served the elder Bush with distinction. I realize that some of these folks did not work out well. But the Bush cabinet was not, for example, a bunch of old white men.

I was amused by an article today in the Washington Post Outlook section. Who Won Feminism?*, by Naomi Wolf, begins

Look at Michelle Obama: She has segued seamlessly from an active professional life as a highly paid hospital executive to her current incarnation as fashion plate, doting mom and demure sex object, posing for Vogue in a hot fuchsia frock that shows plenty of skin. What’s most surprising about this metamorphosis? How few people are objecting to it.

I mention this passage by way of showing the degree of infatuation with the Obamas.  Sure, Ms. Obama was a highly paid hospital executive. I guess she brought unique skills to her job, because when she left the position to come to Washington, her position was not back filled. Sounds more like she was given her position as a way to buy influence. This was similar to Hilary Clinton, who was a full partner in the Rose Law Firm.

Yes indeed, the Democrats are up. The Republicans are down. But I still don’t get it.